As this thread has now morphed to consideration of contributing factors, & the inevitable search for answers, perhaps as somewhat of an outsider to this debate, I can chime in with a few thoughts.

In a country where a very rich & influential lobby opposes mandatory safety catches on guns as being "unconstitutional", yet has a firearms related child homicide rate (by percentage of population) greater than the rest of the top 25 industrialized nations combined, you know any attempt to afford change is nigh impossible. The priorities are just too skewed to make headway.

Mandatory safety catch on a cigarette lighter = no problem.
Mandatory safety catch on a lethal device that would go some considerable way to preventing the 5 or so daily firearms related child deaths & injuries in the US = big problem. Go figure--

Clearly, any degree of gun control will never prevent a determined & resourced deranged individual from carrying out their intended crime. Same applies to terrorism. Ring fencing soft targets won't work either. Take all statistics in context & with a pinch of salt, but when the numbers stack up to be so hugely disparate, to deny that firearms proliferation isn't at least a very significant factor, is to ignore the overwhelmingly obvious. Saving lives of those outside of these dreadful high profile events must be the aim of all right thinking Americans. Preventing the multiple horrific, the exceptional, is a difficult one to win, but the daily slaughter that passes underneath the press radar can surely be reduced by a change of emphasis. Society is increasingly obsessed with protecting the rights of the individual. That's fine, but when upholding those individual rights is to the detriment of the greater society, one has to question personal motivation.

Adjusted for population size, & excluding suicide, the firearms related death rate in the US is 92 times greater than the UK. The UK is no model place, I can assure you, but in global terms, it's society demographic is surprisingly similar to that of the US, the only significant difference being it's gun laws. A multiplication of 92 times the death rate guys, that's no statistical "blip".

Great post Andy!

Tie this issue in with the lack of mental health laws, lack of control over kids inside and outside of schools, political correctness that binds us to dealing with these issues head-on is reflected not only in this sad tragedy, but society at large.

I've witnessed more rage issues in a simple 4 year old preschool room (way beyond tantrums) that would make your head spin. Nothing is done or can be done. Services are cut, parents are in denial and teachers hands are tied.

Carry this forward and what comes of it are troubled adolescents, teenagers and adults that can no longer function in this society as civil human beings. Give this group access to any sort of weapon and watch what happens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anon La Ply

Easy to argue black is white but the issues are very obvious.

Very sad but entirely expected until the denial stops ... pity the kids, teachers and families.

I've always been of the view that one gun in a potentially violent situation leads to a lower potential for being shot. Both sides having guns merely raises the stakes and in hazardous situations, simply increases the chance of being shot from panicking the criminal. This notion of 'defending oneself' is exactly the reason why knife crime in South London has become a problem. One teenager carries a knife, the others start carrying to 'defend' and then all of a sudden you have a spate of stabbings. The same is true of guns.

But in that case....the great majority of guns were illegal,and not posessed lawfully.This was also the case in all....yes all of these shootings.The guns were illegally posessed.

Before I was assigned to crime scene,I was assigned to the ballistics unit.we exanined and test fired all firearms that were vouchered by the NYPD, in
arrest,surrender,investigated and found circustances.Around that 3% of firearms that were used to commit a crime are legally possessed.All others are posessed illegally.

NY City has tough gun control laws,and is one of the only citys in the country,where to need a permit for a long gun.The only handgun carry permits that are issued are generally fot retired law enforcment,and only 200 or so to civilians,in a city of over 8 million people.

In my second year on the job I was shot in my vest ,buy a emotionally disturbed person,who wanted to commit suicide.My partner and I were trying to talk him down.He wouldn't open the door,so we were there for quite a while,when he suddenly fired 4 shots through the door.It was a heavy metal skinned,lined door and two of the shots hit me in the chest.I was wearing my bullet resistant vest,which stopped the rounds.This individual I believe was originally planning suicide by cop,but later changed his mind,and later took his own life by shooting himself in the head.He was one of the first recorded AIDS cases in NY.

How that relates to this is,I'm also and NRA and NY state firearms instructor.I have taught hundreds of cops and civilians,including Boy Scouts how to shoot.I'ts also about safety,common sense,and respect.I continue to teach to this day..

I can't tell you how many times I've said this.....owning a gun is a life style change,and if you can't or won't wrap your head around that,then you have no business even being anywhere near a firearm.I have on occasion called the NYPD license section and told them,NOT to issue some of my students a permit.I have taught staunch anti gunners about guns,safety,common sense possession and marksmanship.The great majority changed their minds and saw the other side of the coin.

As much as I believe in civilian ownership of firearms,just because you can do something,dosen't mean you should.Judgement , temperment,respect,and mental stability should be factored in as well as training.BEFORE legally posessing a firarm

Just as an aside,when I last visited London,as a retired NYPD,I was curious to know how the Metropolitan police felt about being armed and unarmed.In and around St James and Buckingham Palace,there were pleny of armed,yes armed PCs.I spock to a sergeant who was standing a post close to St James.I told him who I was,and said ,do you mind if I ask you a question.I said I notice your carrying a Glock 19,truthfully,don't you feel better with that on your hip?
He just smiled broadley ,and said..I feel the same way you do detective.The UK is one of a very few parts of the world that dosen't routinely arm it's police,except for the PSNI where all officers are armed.

There are lots of arguments to he heard.There will be extreme arguments on either side.Clearly we need to be more active in our childrens lives,and become more educated as teachers and parents.We also need to recognize the signs of mental illness when we see them,and take immeadiate and positive action.

Unfortunately,parenting in the US at least is the largest growing competitive sport in the country.The not me,my child is perfect, blinders on, parent numbers are growing.Parents seem to believe that schools,teachers,TV and the internet should be raising their children,in a time when parents and the family unit need to reinforce education with interaction,love an just plain common sense.As a retired boy scout leader,I can tell you as a nation,parents are failing their children.We used to joke the BSA (boy scouts of America),actually stood for Baby Sitters Are us.

Andy...I just need to ask what safety catch you're refering to since all modern quality firearms have actually,numerous built in automatic,as well as manually operated safeties.The Glock pistol as an example has a safe action system which consists of a trigger safety,a half cock disconector,and a drop safety,which are built in,tamperproof and work automaticly.

I said morality is decaying, the family construct is more messed up than ever, we have enabled selfishness and arrogance to go unchecked and tolerance of bad behavior is at an all time high. Meanwhile we are all trying to become better than everyone else and have our eyes glued to screens.

We can just continue to deny it and kick this down the road more. It's only getting worse.

What's wrong with trying to live a life like Jesus lived anyway? Christaphobia

when I last visited London,as a retired NYPD,I was curious to know how the Metropolitan police felt about being armed and unarmed.In and around St James and Buckingham Palace,there were pleny of armed,yes armed PCs.I spock to a sergeant who was standing a post close to St James.I told him who I was,and said ,do you mind if I ask you a question.I said I notice your carrying a Glock 19,truthfully,don't you feel better with that on your hip?
He just smiled broadley ,and said..I feel the same way you do detective.

All due respect to the police and their armed response units, but as a civilian it makes me very uneasy to see armed police in UK streets. Rather than feel safer, my typical reaction is to think that something is wrong . . . something very bad has happened - otherwise armed officers wouldn't be there.

This was very much the case in the days that followed July 7th 2005. A day or two after the bombings I was passing through Leeds City (Railway) Station [which is about 200 miles away from central London where the attacks took place] and saw armed police patrolling the premises. They were armed with submachine guns as well as pistols and I suddenly felt anything but safe. The country was on a higher-than-usual level of security alert, sure, but having an armed police presence gave me little reassurance.

In the wake of the rioting and looting that took place in London and across the UK in August 2011 many called for police to be routinely armed or even to have troops deployed in the worst areas. I don't know about anyone else but I count myself as particularly fortunate to live in a time when Saracens aren't routinely rolling down some of the streets of this country.

There are armed Police in the UK but, as Bad Tempered Clavier says, they are an unusual sight. In the capital, they are usually there as a response to a security alert or to protect a high-value individual such as the Queen or members of the government. Walking around the capital (and I live very close to it, I was in London today, in fact) I have never seen a beat officer wearing a firearm and I don't wish to. The last time I saw an armed officer in the UK was in Gatwick Airport - which obviously has a specific security requirement.

The armed Police in the UK are a very small subset (5%) of officers. Those 5% receive intensive training and are generally only called for in specific instances when life is in immediate danger. Unfortunately, even with this approach to armed Policing, there have been cases in the last few years of officers mistakenly killing civilians, just as there have been cases of civilians killing unarmed officers but these are incredibly rare.

Quite simply, guns are not a topic of everyday British culture. When somebody owns a gun, it is usually on the quiet. I know one civilian that owns a rifle (quite a few own shotguns and the licence is very different) and that is stored at a rifle club, which is practically the only way to own a rifle in the UK. The Section 5 licence - which is required to own anything in a 'military' calibre (e.g. 5.56, 7.62, .223 (same as 5.56 essentially), .308 (same as 7.62 essentially), .303 (old British standard), etc are incredibly stringent to the point that the vast majority of the population could not own a firearm of significant power. Handguns are outright banned. I, for instance, could not privately hold a rifle due to my medical record unless it was stored at a club and everything was logged - including the ammunition.

I find it hard to understand the American attitude towards firearms but I do know a bit about the US Constitution. Nowhere does it say that anybody has the right to own a gun. If they own a weapon, they are supposed to be members of a militia. I doubt that many people in the US that privately hold weapons are members of an organised militia, or have indeed actually studied the Constitutional Amendment. The Second Amendment is actually based on a British writ that says much the same, except with the caveat that any ownership of arms must adhere to other laws - no such caveat is applied in the US Constitution.

As a result, I find it very amusing when people speak of the 'right' to own a gun. The Constitution actually says no such thing! 'Arm' is not a synonymous term and the membership of a militia should be enforceable - but it's not enforced.

The first step in every social change is education and awareness. Of course anybody motivated enough to commit a crime will do so and this may involve a firearm - this is true in any country but in the US the ease of access to firearms is second-to-none in the Western World, with the exception of Switzerland for reasons Henri explained. Guns may not kill people but guns make it a Hell of a lot easier for an individual to commit mass murder should they be motivated. If the same individual had entered the school with a Katana or a Machete, I doubt the death toll would have been anything like as tragic as that which transpired. Trying to bury heads in the sand and deny that gun control is a problem is a deep disrespect to all of those killed in these tragic incidents, at home, work, or school.

From an outsider's perspective, the American attitude towards guns is absolutely crazy. Would I like to own a rifle for target shooting in a controlled environment? Sure. It's fun. Would I like to own a rifle at home for no reason other than my own soundness of mine against some ephemeral 'bad guys'? Hell no.

I can understand exactly how you feel.During the same time I was visiting the UK,I took the Chunnel over to Paris,and in their subways were two man armed canine patrols,with automatic assault rifles.I believe they were the National police,but their uniforms were very military in appearence.Now I'm an American,and a cop who's been around guns my whole life,and that made me give pause.This was in 2000,before the bombings of 9/11 ,and the ones in the UK.I've done warrant executions,and have been armed with a shotgun or M-4,but never on patrol.

It all changed after that.NYPD on the streets and airports with full body armor ,dogs and automatic weapons.....every day,24/7/365.

Even if you were to ban all guns......there are millions of them out there.Plenty of them are illegal guns owned by ,you guessed it,Joe criminal.There is more gun related gun crimes like robbery in NY City,because the bad guys who have the illegal guns,know that joe citizen isn't armed.Just ask them.I did,and thats the answer they will all give you.

They love it when things like this happen.It means theanti gun lobby will start shouting gun control again,and take more legaly owned guns away from Joe citizen.That just makes their job easier.It's amazing what you learn talking to prision inmates.

In a country like the US, more gun control just dosen't work,because it only affects the law abiding citizen,who does what he must legally,to posess a firearm.The bad guy or the psyco dosen't care about gun laws or permits or training.Gun control only makes their job a lot easier,because they know that when they confront you,that you won't be armed......but they will..........

Andy...I just need to ask what safety catch you're refering to since all modern quality firearms have actually,numerous built in automatic,as well as manually operated safeties.The Glock pistol as an example has a safe action system which consists of a trigger safety,a half cock disconector,and a drop safety,which are built in,tamperproof and work automaticly.

Steve B

Steve, let me start by saying how informative your post was :)

I also want to point out that, although I believe most firmly that firearm proliferation is a negative factor, I also understand the scale & complexity of the issues. For starters, even if it was possible to substantially reduce firearm ownership, how the hell would you implement it. Disarming all the legally entitled people leaving the majority of firearms in the hands of criminals isn't exactly a good idea.

My information may be out of date Steve, but I remember taking a return flight from JFK a few years ago, & reading a copy of the Herald Tribune. There was an article describing a debate (I can't remember which house, senate I think) where a senator argued against mandatory fitting of safety catches on the basis it was unconstitutional. I think the issue was the NRA were fighting against mandatory measures. manufacturers are free to fit such devices, as are customers free to choose firearms with safety catches fitted. Let's face it, who wouldn't, but the NRA were opposed to it being a legal requirement to have a safety catch. If I remember correctly, the proposed legislation only applied to new guns, with no requirement to retrofit. I've no idea how it all panned out.

Major tragedy & killing spree happenings aside, I think any process has to start with accepting there's a serious problem. For one nation to have such a hugely disparate firearms related mortality rate, whilst maintaining a similar population & society demographic as their global neighbors, there must be a set of factors that set that nation aside from all the others.

I also accept the feelings of needing to defend yourself. In such a context, I totally get that, but, on a small & personal scale, in the US, you effectively have a domestic arms race in progress. When has that ever been a good policy?

I also accept that most shootings are down to those who own firearms illegally, but is it not reasonable to assume that availability with such ease is part of that issue? The more firearms out there, the easier it is to get hold of them, & let's face it, the US is awash with guns - literally.

Oh, he's most definitely just another "profit" mate. Whether he's the son of God or not, he's been more than profitable to quite a few organisations for a couple of thousand years now.

Best Freudian slip ever!! ;-)

Jules, we must have a telepathic link :)

Screw guns - more drums! There are more gun shops in the US than McDonalds ... imagine what the country would be like if there were more music shops instead?? Yes, I know - it's impossible to imagine :(

It would help to have a medical safety net too, so people with mental illness can afford to get help before everything goes to hell. Let's face it, the gun genie can't be put back in the bottle, which is a sad situation for US citizens who don't love lethal weaponry.

I don't wish to single out any particular nation because - as I alluded to earlier in this thread - firearm related deaths, be they homicide, suicide, or accidental, are a Global problem.

However I do find it curious when people cite "home defence" as reason for owning a firearm, whether they happen to be legally/morally entitled to own that weapon or not. I mean, if one happens to live in a part of the world where your home is likely to be invaded by a bear or something or you need something to stop predators attacking your livestock then fair enough. Otherwise we are talking about shooting and, by extension, potentially killing a person.

A lot of people make very bold statements about the ease with which they would happily shoot anyone who threatens their home/family/whatever but I wonder if it is always so easy. Unless that person happens to have experience of combat or at least a firefight then the likelihood of them freezing up when faced with such a confrontation is surely quite high; and there are precious few ways for civilians to train for combat. Shooting at stationary paper targets when you are at rest is one thing. Trying to fire upon a moving, living, human when you've just woken up at 3am and everyone in the house is screaming is another.

BTC all of this is true, however there are classes from several of the gun shops here that teach you to take the shot and not stand there shaking like a leaf. I live in a very quiet neighborhood where the houses are in the 135 to 150 K range and in the 25 years I have been here there has been one home invasion of a senior lady. She was targeted by the robber because of her age and put up little fight. I'm sure a gun would not have helped her, but if the invader has been threatened by someone else a little more adept, he would have turned and run. No one wants to shoot anyone but if its me or the bad guy, the bad guy is going to lose.

[quote=BacteriumFendYoke;1086648] /i].
I find it hard to understand the American attitude towards firearms but I do know a bit about the US Constitution. Nowhere does it say that anybody has the right to own a gun. If they own a weapon, they are supposed to be members of a militia. I doubt that many people in the US that privately hold weapons are members of an organised militia, or have indeed actually studied the Constitutional Amendment. The Second Amendment is actually based on a British writ that says much the same, except with the caveat that any ownership of arms must adhere to other laws - no such caveat is applied in the US Constitution.

Actually it does....

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I see no legal caveat, Mark. The original document the Second Amendment is based upon puts the right to bear arms as secondary to any law that may supersede that right. The Second Amendment leaves that out.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]

Regardless of the "right to bear arms" it is still important to make sure that this conversation comes down to so much more than whether or not a citizen should be allowed to own guns. We must remember to keep the mental health issues, safety of our schools. community involvement, etc. in our conversations. It seems that almost all of the discussions (not necessarily here, but all over) have come down to either guns or God. I agree, guns should take part in the discussions. God should not.

We need to step back, take an OBJECTIVE look at what really needs to be done and then look at a course of action. Rash decisions will get us nowhere except a step backwards.

__________________
I am deluded enough to think I can bring something to the table - Huey Lewis.

In my neck of the woods there has been much discussion on the mental health aspect. I have not forgotten the kids, the teachers, and others, but we must keep in mind that all of the talk takes on this same tone after every massacre. The first thing I did when I got that night was email my daughter in law and tell her to give my two grandsons a hug, which she did for me without hesitation. I just don't like knee jerk reactions to serious problems.

The problem with the gun issue is that the gun lobbyists have the government by the balls- not the wording of the constitution or anything as that has been beaten to death in thousands of legal cases.

Its the lobbyists. Like so many other issues.

I am actually expecting Obama to come out with something (proposed law change of some sort) after this event (sickens me to try to come up with another name for it) in Newtown. It would be unprecedented but we all agree a necessary step to take that is waaaaaaay overdue.

I have hunting guns, locked in a safe, disassembled, in a room with a deadbolt on the door, ammo in a separate case locked as well. Not so hard to set it up this way. I can hardly play a triplet but I can make guns safe.

Personally would love to see every weapon registered with local police by way of a home firearm safety inspection that would be updated every 3-5 years or so. I think it would teach gun safety, allow cops to see whats going on in a home and know who has what. I have them, store them safely and use them for enjoyment occasionally and would be fine with them knowing. I also feel that if you arent OK with this, you have something to hide and shouldn't have it. Only reason I think this might work is because no one is slated to lose their guns. A real fear obviously.

The NRA would fight that for 1000 years for whatever reason- they would drum something up as they have for most gun issues in the past.

From an outsider's perspective, the American attitude towards guns is absolutely crazy. Would I like to own a rifle for target shooting in a controlled environment? Sure. It's fun. Would I like to own a rifle at home for no reason other than my own soundness of mine against some ephemeral 'bad guys'? Hell no.

That statement would be valid only if there were some uniform "American attitude towards guns." I keep two pistols in the house, a revolver and a small capacity semi auto, unloaded and secured and out of reach of the children. I believe the framers of the Constitution wanted Americans to be free to own arms generally, so that if there were a need to call people up to serve in a formal militia, then citizens would have some familiarity with firearms.

At the same time, I do support reasonable restrictions. I think weapons that can fire too rapidly, and large capacity magazine clips (whether the goofily menacing "assault weapons" or something else) should be banned. If you can't hit something with six shots, then you need to practice at the shooting range, not spray more bullets. There is simply no need in hunting or self-protection to have a weapon capable of such overkill. Also, if you are clinically depressed, a mental defective or have some other condition that could reasonably affect your judgment with regard to the use of a firearm, you should have your guns confiscated until a mental health professional clears you.

So, don't assume there's some kind of uniform attitude among gun owners. Many, like me, don't follow the radical agenda of the NRA and support reasonable restrictions.

All well said by DMC. I would own a gun for the same reason. BUt banning large clips, and semi-automatic weapons will not work now with the amount that have already been sold. If you are required to turn them in, the law abiding citizens will do so. They are not the problem. It's the criminal element that will never abide by such rules. I would like to see from this day forward, every weapon sold, traded or whatever have to be registerrd at the state level. Keep the US govt. out of it. They couldn't keep Fast and Furious safe. And putting Joe Biden in charge of a committee is ridiculous. Google Delaware gun laws, where Biden is from and see what is up. Nothing is registered at all. Joe has to clean his own house first.

Regardless of the "right to bear arms" it is still important to make sure that this conversation comes down to so much more than whether or not a citizen should be allowed to own guns. We must remember to keep the mental health issues, safety of our schools. community involvement, etc. in our conversations.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, Mary. However issues such as mental health are far harder to tackle in the immediate future than that of small arms. I'm not saying that they should be completely ignored, but not enough countries in the world have adequate health care systems - let alone one that can provide proper mental health care - for all their citizens. If one is fortunate and affluent enough to have access to accurate diagnosis and necessary treatment then that is a blessing. The business of improving the mental health and general well being of the poor, disaffected, and misguided members of any society - some of whom may wish to do harm to others - is a long-term goal and certainly one that we all should be headed towards.

Yet whilst we're doing that is the idea of having fewer firearms in the world and fewer people able to access those arms inconceivable? Would not such an idea be considerably easier and quicker to achieve? To quote from that IANSA publication I linked to earlier:

"Guns may not be the root cause of violence, but they multiply it dramatically. Poverty, unemployment, injustice, frustration, fear, jealousy or depression can kindle the spark of violence; adding guns to such a volatile environment is like throwing petrol onto a fire.

When guns replace fists - or knives - the outcome is far more likely to result in death. So a mundane case of road rage turns into a homicide. An alcohol-fuelled argument leaves behind a corpse. Faced with the breakdown of personal relationships, such as and act of infidelity, a gun can turn a moment of blinding anger into a lifetime of regret. A dispute between neighbouring communities can erupt into a war once the first shots ring out.

The power to transform tension or anxiety into tragedy in an instant is a design characteristic of small arms. Guns are designed for the purpose of killing. Gunshot wounds are particularly severe compared with other injuries, because of the extensive damage to surrounding tissue. Guns, unlike knives, can kill at a distance, whether by direct aim or by a stray bullet. The presence of a gun also reduces the likelihood of bystanders intervening to assist the victim or to pacify the assailant."

"All societies are affected by gun violence but poor countries suffer the brunt of the impact. Poor people are the most likely to be shot, yet they are the least likely to receive treatment and rehabilitation. An estimated 3000 people a day are left severely injured by guns - that's three for every person killed [. . .] Because the direct victims of gun violence are overwhelmingly young and male, the death rate can have a serious impact on a country's workforce, especially in regions where women are traditionally occupied with bringing up a family."

I think that last paragraph highlights the crux of the problem: when prosperous nations hear about influenza or malaria having such an affect on a poorer country's mortality rate then they do not hesitate to rush over and help. Yet someone somewhere is surely profiting from the manufacture and trade of small arms and it is the ones that can least afford to acquire them - both in terms of financial cost and the cost of human life - who suffer the most for it.

I've been reading this thread and thought I'd stay out of it, but just couldn't help putting my two cents in.

As you can probably tell by my username, I happen to be one of those dreaded "Gun" people.

As a member of the US Army for 22 years.........I had the opportunity to see many places where the government, or criminal elements, were the only ones with "arms" and it never seemed to work in the citizens favor. As much as we would all like to have "Peace on Earth", man is a violent species...........and, unfortunately will continue to be.

Personally, I think we need to look at all factors instead of the knee jerk reaction of banning all guns. It is an American constitutional right that has been in place since our inception............which was, by the way, a violent one. The vast majority of gun violence, in our country, is committed by criminals who couldn't care less what laws are passed.

I grew up in Pine Ridge, South Dakota, one of the poorest places in America, to this day. Anyone familiar with Pine Ridge will tell you it is not the "ideal" place to grow up. We had many issues, but guns were not one of them. For my 12th birthday, I received a .22/410 over and under, kept it in my closet along with the ammo............every kid I knew owned a gun, but we would never have thought of shooting each other.............plenty of fist fights, but no gun violence. Right or wrong it was the culture we lived in. It wasn't that we didn't see people use guns..........all of our heroes did, John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, etc............but the guns were always, in our minds, used for good.

Todays kids, mine included, are not allowed this easy access to weapons. I think that is for the better, as children don't always understand the consequences of their actions. I do feel that children should be taught weapons safety and always respect the inherent danger.

What I feel changed was the way we raise our children...............

- todays children spend an average of 4 to 5 hours a day watching TV, playing video games, on the computer etc. Real social interaction isn't near as prevalent.

- Many children are raised in single parent households, as was I. The result, in a lot of cases, is the children do not get the same attention, guidance or supervision as when there are two parents in the house

- The lack of facilities to deal with the mentally ill.........these need to come back.

These factors, along with decreased individual responsibility, has not been good for our children.

I know plenty of you will disagree, and that is fine, but myself and many Americans see it the same way.

Bacterium, I had never known our second amendment, or the concept, came from a British document...........interesting, but not surprising, as most everyone in the original thirteen colonies had ties to Britain..........what document did it come from? I'd like to look it up.

/i].
I find it hard to understand the American attitude towards firearms but I do know a bit about the US Constitution. Nowhere does it say that anybody has the right to own a gun. If they own a weapon, they are supposed to be members of a militia. I doubt that many people in the US that privately hold weapons are members of an organised militia, or have indeed actually studied the Constitutional Amendment. The Second Amendment is actually based on a British writ that says much the same, except with the caveat that any ownership of arms must adhere to other laws - no such caveat is applied in the US Constitution.

Actually it does....

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The supreme court interpretid that passage as each state was entitled to have it's own miltia(as in the national guard, in which that states Governor is commander in chief of) AND the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

But what if a mother was made to exercise far more stringent control over a ready made arsenal sitting in a cupboard just waiting for her idiot son to access so easily?

That's exactly what I'm talking about.Responsible firearms ownership..is a life....style ...change.Once you make an informed decision to legally posess a firearm,you must also agree to all the rules...not just the ones you like,that go along with safe and responsible ownership.You have to change the way you think to the same degree that you do when you bring a child into the world.Target shooting can be a lot of fun,but when it comes to securing my firearms,and safety I'm as serious as a heart attack.

In order to get a consealed carry,or target pistol permit,you must complete a training course usually given by local law inforcement.I hate saying this,but cops and the military shoot each other all the time.Safety takes a back seat to some commonly employed tactics,and some of this attitude bleeds through in their instruction.

That attitide is idiotic and has no place in proper training.Guns are suppose to be kept in a locked steel box or safe....and the ammunition is suppose to be stored in a seperate locked container.The only exception is when you're actually carrying a gun,at a range or hunting..leaving guns in an unlocked cabinet with available ammo it a recipe for disaster.

In NYC,the NYPD license section makes you take photos of trigger locks on all of your guns,and the firearms safe in which the'll be stored.They must acompany a notorized document when you renew your permit.The NYPD also checks on gun owners to make sure you are in compliance.This is a condition of ownership.Normally it would violate you constitutional rights,but by agreeing to firearm ownership,you waive that right,under very narrow circunstances.

I think that it's actually a smart thing to do,and if the local LEOs where this woman who had the guns did this,there is a possibility that this tragedy could have been avoided.If this humanoid couldn't get her guns,who knows what might have happened.

Longgun, the Second Amendment was based on a passage from the 1689 Bill of Rights. The specific wording escapes me but the specific phrase is easily searchable on Wikipedia if you look up the Second Amendment.

All well said by DMC. I would own a gun for the same reason. BUt banning large clips, and semi-automatic weapons will not work now with the amount that have already been sold. If you are required to turn them in, the law abiding citizens will do so. They are not the problem. It's the criminal element that will never abide by such rules. I would like to see from this day forward, every weapon sold, traded or whatever have to be registerrd at the state level. Keep the US govt. out of it. They couldn't keep Fast and Furious safe. And putting Joe Biden in charge of a committee is ridiculous. Google Delaware gun laws, where Biden is from and see what is up. Nothing is registered at all. Joe has to clean his own house first.

I agree that banning large capacity magazines is a measure that in real life application ...does NOTHING.The bad guy will just buy more magazines,to compensate .So instead of one 15 round magazine,the'll just carry two 10 round mags,or three 5 round mags.

With a little practice,you can reload a semi-auto in about 3 seconds.Pro target shooters can do it in about 1 second or less.When I was competitivly shooting police revolver,using speed loaders, I could reload in between one and two seconds and be back on target..

I agree with keeping the feds out of it,but the US government should help foot the bill.Keeping things on a state and municipal lever would exert a greater degree of monitoring of transactions and ownership.It would also insure that firearms and ammo were being safely stored,and kept away from innocent children as well as the psyco bad guys.

All well said by DMC. I would own a gun for the same reason. BUt banning large clips, and semi-automatic weapons will not work now with the amount that have already been sold. If you are required to turn them in, the law abiding citizens will do so. They are not the problem. It's the criminal element that will never abide by such rules. I would like to see from this day forward, every weapon sold, traded or whatever have to be registerrd at the state level. Keep the US govt. out of it. They couldn't keep Fast and Furious safe. And putting Joe Biden in charge of a committee is ridiculous. Google Delaware gun laws, where Biden is from and see what is up. Nothing is registered at all. Joe has to clean his own house first.

I think most gun owners, like you and I, support reasonable restrictions, narrowly drawn to protect the public in some specific way. The stereotype that all gun owners are lunatics is wrong - as is the stereotype that someone who wants any reasonable restriction must be intent on banning all guns. Most people own guns and are OK with some restrictions. Unfortunately, the extremes get all the attention and the rational majority in the middle has no one to represent them.

As far as banning large capacity clips, where to you think criminals get theirs? They either buy them or steal them from law abiding citizens, or from other criminals. If we ban these clips, their numbers will gradually decrease.

A simple way to read the second amendment is to add/change a couple words to bring the language up to modern norms:

"Because A well regulated Militia, is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

The problem with banning guns or even a type of gun is one of definition and scale. First how do you define an assault weapon w/o restricting Elmer Fudd's semi-automatic hunting rifle. They function in the same manner. One is just cosmetically different than the other. (Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.) So you write a law to restrict the evil looking gun but still allow your hunting constituency to keep their hunting rifles and you've written a useless feel good law that does nothing. This can be seen with our last assault rifle ban. I bought my first AR-15 during the ban...

Second is the issue of scale. The world bank estimates there are 500 million small arms available world wide. Of which, incidentally, 100 million are AK-47 type (AKM, Type 56, M60, M70B2, Galil, and others) assault rifles. These are sold in some markets for $30-$125. Now keep in mind these are real assault rifles that fire in a fully automatic manner that are not currently available to the US consumer who can only buy semi-automatic firearms w/o jumping though special hoops. Now couple that with the fact that 300 million firearms are privately held in the United States. Finally, firearms aren't magical creations. They are really quite simple to make. Make them illegal and there will be money to be made for any guy with a mill and or lathe in his garage. All these factors mean that removing firearms from those that don't mind breaking laws will be impossible.

As far as banning large capacity clips, where to you think criminals get theirs? They either buy them or steal them from law abiding citizens, or from other criminals. If we ban these clips, their numbers will gradually decrease.

You realize in the last three days with the magazine buying panic that is going on right now in anticipation of new restrictions well over 100,000 new magazines have been sold in the last three days. Heck, I just added 6 more to my collection because if legislation passes it will be the best investment I've made since 2008. Based on the previous assault weapons ban in the US, prices will triple. If legislation doesn't pass they're still worth what I paid for them.

Furthermore, the military will have to keep much better tabs on their equipment. If they are banned, $40 per mag will buy private Joe a lot of beer. "Honest Sarge, I lost it in the swamp."

As I have learned more about how the event unfolded I have concluded that it is time to have armored structure in school buildings in the needed areas.
I also believe that a trained and armed special officer is needed at every school.
Perhaps It could be a job for officers who are nearing retirement who want to do it.
Children will always be prey for sick demented criminals simply because they are defenseless.

Gun control alone will not solve the issue.

The Newtown Fire Department has received 6000 Teddy Bears to hand out. They have handed out over 1000 already.
Millions of dollars in donations have come in for the families.
The media is beginning to thin out a bit and a sort of, "normalcy" for lack of a better word in starting to settle in.
Of course we all know that it will never be the same.

I am off to Sandy Hook in a few moments for Jazz band practice. We decided to hold it to get a break from the sadness.